mirror of
https://gitlab.isc.org/isc-projects/bind9
synced 2025-09-03 08:05:21 +00:00
added
This commit is contained in:
580
doc/draft/draft-whr-dnsext-secure-online-update-00.txt
Normal file
580
doc/draft/draft-whr-dnsext-secure-online-update-00.txt
Normal file
@@ -0,0 +1,580 @@
|
|||||||
|
INTERNET-DRAFT X. Wang, Y. Huang, D Rine (GMU)
|
||||||
|
<draft-whr-dnsext-secure-online-update-00.txt> June 2000
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
Updates: RFC 2136
|
||||||
|
Replaces: RFC 2137
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
Secure Online Domain Name System (DNS) Dynamic Update
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
Status of this Memo
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with
|
||||||
|
all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
|
||||||
|
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
|
||||||
|
other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
|
||||||
|
Drafts.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six
|
||||||
|
months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other
|
||||||
|
documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts
|
||||||
|
as reference material or to cite them other than as ``work in
|
||||||
|
progress.''
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
|
||||||
|
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
|
||||||
|
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
Comments should be sent to the authors or the DNSIND WG mailing
|
||||||
|
list namedroppers@internic.net.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
This draft expires on December 9, 2000.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
Copyright Notice
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2000). All rights reserved.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
Abstract
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
This document proposes an alternate architecture to enable secure
|
||||||
|
online Domain Name System (DNS) dynamic updates. It is intended
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
Expires December 2000 [Page 1]
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
INTERNET-DRAFT Secure Online DNS Dynamic Update June 2000
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
to enable a DNS zone to provide online dynamic update and at the
|
||||||
|
same time, maintain the zone's security including role separation
|
||||||
|
and intrusion tolerance against insider and outsider attacks.
|
||||||
|
Threshold digital signature is used to implement the proposed
|
||||||
|
architecture.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
1 - Introduction
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
This document proposes an alternate architecture to allow a
|
||||||
|
DNS zone to provide secure online dynamic update. In contrast
|
||||||
|
to existing dynamic update scheme, the proposed architecture
|
||||||
|
distinguishes itself in that it provides high security
|
||||||
|
for a zone when allowing it support online dynamic update.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
Familiarity with the DNS system [RFC1034, RFC1035], DNS
|
||||||
|
Security Extension [RFC2535], dynamic update [RFC2136] and
|
||||||
|
secure dynamic update [RFC2137] is helpful and is assumed by
|
||||||
|
this document.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
This document obsoletes RFC 2137, an alternate proposal
|
||||||
|
for secure dynamic update, due to implementation experience.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
1.1 - Overview of DNS Security Extension
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
DNS Security Extension (DNSSEC) is proposed in [RFC2535].
|
||||||
|
The DNSSEC provides RR authentication by the use of digital
|
||||||
|
signatures. In DNSSEC, each zone is equipped with a
|
||||||
|
public/private key pair. The private key is used to digitally
|
||||||
|
sign all the RRs in that zone. The response to a DNS query
|
||||||
|
will also include the requested RRs and a SIG RR
|
||||||
|
(signature RR), which contains the digital signature of the
|
||||||
|
requested RRs. The zone public key, used to verify signatures,
|
||||||
|
is disseminated by means of KEY RRs.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
A major security principle of the DNSSEC is the role separation:
|
||||||
|
it differentiates the roles of the DNS server administrator from
|
||||||
|
the DNS zone manager. One advantage of the role separation
|
||||||
|
is that it helps to prevent power abuses [SBM99]. In DNSSEC,
|
||||||
|
it is the DNS zone manager, not the DNS server administrator,
|
||||||
|
who is responsible for the security of a zone. A DNS server is
|
||||||
|
just a place to publish the digitally signed DNS data of the zone.
|
||||||
|
Thus, compromise of a secondary server or, if the zone private
|
||||||
|
key is kept off line, even the primary server for a zone, will
|
||||||
|
not necessarily affect the degree of assurance that a DNS
|
||||||
|
client receives [RFC2535]. When zone data is updated, the zone
|
||||||
|
manager will sign the new zone data off-line.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
1.2 - Overview of DNS Dynamic Update and DNS Secure Dynamic Update
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
The idea of keeping zone private key off-line and computing
|
||||||
|
the signatures of RRs off-line is based on the assumption
|
||||||
|
that RRs in a DNS zone are relatively static. Indeed, in
|
||||||
|
normal situations we can expect that bindings between domain
|
||||||
|
names and IP addresses do not change frequently. However, it
|
||||||
|
has been pointed out that DNS dynamic updates, which enable
|
||||||
|
real-time changes (that is, add, delete, or update) in
|
||||||
|
name/address bindings, are useful under many circumstances
|
||||||
|
[Liu99,RFC2136]. (For example, such an update allows a
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
Wang, Huang & Rine [Page 2]
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
INTERNET-DRAFT June 2000
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
corporation to switch to a new domain name without waiting for
|
||||||
|
the slow, manual processing of the name change request by a
|
||||||
|
domain name registrar.) For a dynamic RR update to take effect
|
||||||
|
immediately and securely, the signature of the updated RR must
|
||||||
|
be computed online. It is worthwhile to note that although
|
||||||
|
a DNS dynamic update requestor is communicating with a name
|
||||||
|
server, the name server itself has no rights to update the
|
||||||
|
zone data. Instead, it is the zone private key, instead of
|
||||||
|
the name server's private key, that is needed in the dynamic
|
||||||
|
update.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
In [RFC2137], two modes are defined to achieve the above goal.
|
||||||
|
In mode A, the zone private key is kept off-line and any
|
||||||
|
dynamic requests will be authorized by a dynamic update key
|
||||||
|
that is kept online. However, in this mode, since the zone
|
||||||
|
private key is not kept online, zone transfer security is
|
||||||
|
not automatically provided for dynamically added RRs, where
|
||||||
|
they could be omitted, and authorization is not provided for
|
||||||
|
the server denial of the existence of a dynamically added
|
||||||
|
type [RFC2137]. In this sense, this mode is not a genuine
|
||||||
|
DNS dynamic update. In mode B, on the other hand, the zone
|
||||||
|
private key is kept online at the zone primary name server;
|
||||||
|
thus, any legitimate DNS dynamic updates can be in effect
|
||||||
|
immediately.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
1.3 - The existing drawbacks
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
Both of the above modes above require that a zone security
|
||||||
|
related private key be kept on line at the primary name server.
|
||||||
|
This practice raises security concerns [RFC2137]. First, it makes
|
||||||
|
the primary name server a single point of attack to an outside
|
||||||
|
attacker. Should the primary server be compromised, the on<6F>line
|
||||||
|
private key will be exposed, rendering dynamic RRs insecure
|
||||||
|
in mode A or, even worse, all RRs in the entire zone insecure
|
||||||
|
in mode B. Second, as an insider, the name server administrator
|
||||||
|
has access of this private key, compromising the role separation
|
||||||
|
principle and making it possible for the name server
|
||||||
|
administrator to abuse his/her power. (The importance of fending
|
||||||
|
off insider attacks has been emphasized by the security
|
||||||
|
community [RFC2196].)
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
2 - The Secure On-line DNS Dynamic Update Architecture
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
2.1 - Background: Threshold Cryptography
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
Threshold cryptography is a branch of cryptography that
|
||||||
|
enables a group of n members, 1,2, ..., n, to act as a single
|
||||||
|
communication party, using one pair of public and private keys
|
||||||
|
[Des87,Des94,Des97]. Similar to the traditional public key
|
||||||
|
cryptography, the public key is known to the public. Unlike
|
||||||
|
the traditional public key cryptography, the private key of
|
||||||
|
the group, K_private, does not exist as a whole. Rather, each
|
||||||
|
member i, 1 <= i <= n, will be assigned a number of key shares
|
||||||
|
of the private key. (For each public key cryptography algorithm,
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
Wang, Huang & Rine [Page 3]
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
INTERNET-DRAFT June 2000
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
a corresponding key sharing mechanism must be devised.) To
|
||||||
|
perform a cryptographic computation (such as decryption, signing,
|
||||||
|
identification, etc.) on message m with key K_private, b,
|
||||||
|
b <= n , group members will be required. Each member will compute
|
||||||
|
a partial result. Subsequently, the partial results are combined
|
||||||
|
to produce the final result. The combiner is not necessarily to
|
||||||
|
be trusted. Note that during this whole process the shared
|
||||||
|
private key, K_private, is never reconstructed. Further,
|
||||||
|
threshold cryptography requires that the shared private key
|
||||||
|
cannot be reconstructed from any t < b group members.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
Practical threshold cryptography for RSA and DSS have been
|
||||||
|
designed. A practical threshold RSA is given by [DDB94] where
|
||||||
|
b = t+1 and a practical threshold DSS is given by [GJKR96b] where
|
||||||
|
t < n/2 and b = 2t+1.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
2.2 - Introduction
|
||||||
|
+------------------------+
|
||||||
|
+---------+ #####| zone-security server 1 |
|
||||||
|
+---------+ | DNS | # +------------------------+
|
||||||
|
|DNS | DNS query | | #
|
||||||
|
| Inquirer|---------> | | #
|
||||||
|
+---------+ | Primary | # +------------------------+
|
||||||
|
| |#########| zone-security server 2 |
|
||||||
|
| Name | # +------------------------+
|
||||||
|
| | #
|
||||||
|
| | # . . .
|
||||||
|
+------+ | Server | # . . .
|
||||||
|
|DNS | DNS Dynamic | | # . . .
|
||||||
|
| User |=============> | | # +--------------------------+
|
||||||
|
+------+ Update request| | #####| zone-security server n-1 |
|
||||||
|
| | +--------------------------+
|
||||||
|
+---------+
|
||||||
|
|
|
||||||
|
| zone transfer
|
||||||
|
\|/
|
||||||
|
+-----------------+
|
||||||
|
| DNS Secondary |
|
||||||
|
| Name Server |
|
||||||
|
+-----------------+
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
In the above proposed architecture, we assume that there exist
|
||||||
|
(n-1), n >= 2, machines in a given DNS zone that are under the
|
||||||
|
control of the zone manager, but not under the control of the
|
||||||
|
name server administrators. These machines are called the
|
||||||
|
zone-security servers.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
Using a threshold cryptography scheme with n > t >= 1, the
|
||||||
|
zone private key is shared among the (n-1) zone-security servers
|
||||||
|
and the primary name server. To update zone's data dynamically,
|
||||||
|
some of the servers will be needed. Let b > t be the number of
|
||||||
|
zone private key shares needed in the computation of the
|
||||||
|
signature of an RR. Since b >= 2, any change to the zone data
|
||||||
|
will need the cooperation of at least one zone-security server;
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
Wang, Huang & Rine [Page 4]
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
INTERNET-DRAFT June 2000
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
the name server administrator will have no way to modify the
|
||||||
|
digitally signed zone data. Thus, the role separation principle
|
||||||
|
holds. Moreover, the above architecture enhances intrusion
|
||||||
|
tolerance of DNS.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
A DNS system is said to be k-intrusion-tolerant against an
|
||||||
|
entity, E, if breaking into k servers (including the
|
||||||
|
zone-security servers and the DNS name servers, if applicable)
|
||||||
|
that are outside E's control will not help E gain any knowledge
|
||||||
|
of the zone private key. A DNS system is said to be intrusion
|
||||||
|
tolerant against an outsider (insider) if it is at least
|
||||||
|
1-intrusion-tolerant against the outsider (insider). The
|
||||||
|
architecture proposed in this document can be configured to be
|
||||||
|
intrusion tolerant against outside and inside attackers.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
Intrusion tolerance against outsider attacks. In the
|
||||||
|
architecture, the zone private key cannot be recovered from
|
||||||
|
any single location, thus, making the system intrusion
|
||||||
|
tolerant against an outside attacker. That is, even when an
|
||||||
|
outside attacker manages to corrupt l, l <= t, of relevant
|
||||||
|
servers (including the name servers and the zone-security
|
||||||
|
servers), secrecy of the zone private key is still
|
||||||
|
maintained.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
Intrusion tolerance against insider attacks. The presence of
|
||||||
|
zone security servers and the necessity of their involvement
|
||||||
|
in signature computations constitute a defense line
|
||||||
|
against insider attacks, in particular, attacks from name
|
||||||
|
server administrators. Clearly, a hostile name server
|
||||||
|
administrator must break into at least t zone security
|
||||||
|
servers (to get access to the respective key shares) in
|
||||||
|
order to perform unauthorized RR signature computations.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
3 - Implementation Details
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
[RFC2535] defines two types of SIG records, the DSA SIG and
|
||||||
|
the RSA/MD5 SIG. The important configuration and implementation
|
||||||
|
aspects of our proposed architecture with respect to these two types
|
||||||
|
of SIGs are given next. In the following statement,
|
||||||
|
the primary name server will be referred to as server 0 and the
|
||||||
|
(n-1) zone-security servers will be referred to as servers
|
||||||
|
1, 2, ... , (n-1).
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
3.1 - Example Configurations
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
The following table gives some representative configurations, in
|
||||||
|
terms of t and n, to achieve the above security levels in
|
||||||
|
different application cases.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
Wang, Huang & Rine [Page 5]
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
INTERNET-DRAFT June 2000
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
+----------------------------+----------------------------+
|
||||||
|
| | RSA/MD5 SIG | DSA SIG |
|
||||||
|
| SECURITY LEVEL +-------------+--------------+
|
||||||
|
| | 1-2 | 2-4 | 1-3 | 2-5 |
|
||||||
|
+----------------------------+-----+-------+-------+------+
|
||||||
|
|Intrusion tolerant against | | | | |
|
||||||
|
| outsider attackers (Y/N) | Y | Y | Y | Y |
|
||||||
|
+----------------------------+-----+-------+-------+------+
|
||||||
|
|Intrusion tolerant against | | | | |
|
||||||
|
| insider attackers (Y/N) | N | Y | N | Y |
|
||||||
|
+----------------------------+-----+-------+-------+------+
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
3.2 - The RSA/MD5 SIG
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
Assume that, in RSA, the zone's private key is d and its
|
||||||
|
public key is (e, N). Phi(N) is the Euler function of N, i.e.,
|
||||||
|
phi(N) = (p-1)(q-1) where N = p * q. We use the threshold
|
||||||
|
digital signature scheme given in [DDB94] and now give
|
||||||
|
how the zone private key is shared and how to generate a
|
||||||
|
RSA/MD5 SIG RR online.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
The 1-2 case. In this case, the zone manager generates a random,
|
||||||
|
d1, 1 < d1 < phi(N), and compute d2, d2 = d - d1 mod phi(N).
|
||||||
|
Values d1 and d2 are sent securely to the primary name server
|
||||||
|
and the zone-security server respectively.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
To generate a RSA/MD5 SIG of m, where m is the MD5 digest of
|
||||||
|
an RR, the two servers will compute m^d1 mod N and m^d2 mod N
|
||||||
|
respectively. Then any one of them can combine the partial
|
||||||
|
results as m^d1 * m^d2 mod N = m^d mod N, the digital signature
|
||||||
|
of m by the zone private key.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
The 2-4 case. To generate key shares, the zone manager generates
|
||||||
|
4 random numbers, d1, d2, d3, d4, where 1 < di < phi(N)
|
||||||
|
for 1 <= i <= 4. He/she will also compute two numbers,
|
||||||
|
d5 = d - d1 - d2 mod phi(N) and d6 = d - d3 - d4 mod phi(N).
|
||||||
|
Subsequently, d1 and d6 are sent to the primary name server,
|
||||||
|
d2 and d6 are sent to server 1, d3 and d5 are sent to server 2,
|
||||||
|
d4 and d5 are sent to server 3, as shown in the following table.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
+---------------------+----------+----------+----------+---------+
|
||||||
|
| | SERVER 0 | SERVER 1 | SERVER 2 | SERVER 3|
|
||||||
|
+---------------------+----------+----------+----------+---------+
|
||||||
|
| KEYS ASSIGNED | d1, d6 | d2, d6 | d3, d5 | d4, d5 |
|
||||||
|
+-------------+-------+----------+----------+----------+---------+
|
||||||
|
|PARTICIPATING|(0,1,2)| d1 | d2 | d5 | |
|
||||||
|
| +-------+----------+----------+----------+---------+
|
||||||
|
| |(0,1,3)| d1 | d2 | | d5 |
|
||||||
|
| +-------+----------+----------+----------+---------+
|
||||||
|
| |(0,2,3)| d6 | | d3 | d4 |
|
||||||
|
| SERVERS +-------+----------+----------+----------+---------+
|
||||||
|
| |(1,2,3)| | d6 | d3 | d4 |
|
||||||
|
+-------------+-------+----------+----------+----------+---------+
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
Wang, Huang & Rine [Page 6]
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
INTERNET-DRAFT June 2000
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
To generate a RSA/MD5 SIG, any 3 of the 4 servers will be
|
||||||
|
needed. For example, if the primary name server and the
|
||||||
|
zone-security servers 1 and 2 are present (the (0,1,2) case in
|
||||||
|
the above table), the three servers will compute m^d1 mod N,
|
||||||
|
m^d2 mod N, and m^d3 mod N respectively. After that any one of
|
||||||
|
them can combine the partial results to produce
|
||||||
|
m^d1 * m^d2 * m^d3 mod N = m^d mod N, the digital signature of
|
||||||
|
m by the zone private key. Other possibilities of computing
|
||||||
|
the signature of m are summarized in the above table.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
3.3 - The DSA SIG
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
In this case, for a t-n configuration (such as the 1-3 and 2-5
|
||||||
|
configurations), the zone manager will generate n shares of the
|
||||||
|
zone private key and distribute them to the n servers
|
||||||
|
using a (t,n) Shamir secret sharing scheme [Sha79]. When the
|
||||||
|
zone data needs updating, (2t+1) servers are required to jointly
|
||||||
|
compute the DSA SIG RR [GJKR96b].
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
5 - Security considerations
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
This document proposes an architecture to allow a DNS zone to
|
||||||
|
provide secure online DNS dynamic update. It uses threshold
|
||||||
|
digital signature to maintain the role separation principle and can
|
||||||
|
also provide intrusion tolerance against both outside attackers
|
||||||
|
and inside attackers.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
It should be noted that the authentication a DNS dynamic update
|
||||||
|
requestor and authorization of a update request, which is handled
|
||||||
|
elsewhere such as [RFC2535], is not dealt in this document,
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
6 - Acknowledgements
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
The authors wish to thank for many helpful discussions on the
|
||||||
|
DNSSEC mailing list and would like to give special thanks to
|
||||||
|
Yvo Desmedt.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
7 - References
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
[DDB94] Y. Desmedt, G. Di Crescenzo, and M. Burmester.
|
||||||
|
``Multiplicative nonabelian sharing schemes and their
|
||||||
|
application to threshold cryptography''. In J. Pieprzyk
|
||||||
|
and R. SafaviNaini, editors, Advances in Cryptology -
|
||||||
|
Asiacrypt '94, volume 917 of Lecture Notes in Computer
|
||||||
|
Science, pages 21--32, Wollongong, Australia,
|
||||||
|
November/December 1994. Springer-Verlag.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
[Des87] Y. Desmedt. ``Society and group oriented cryptography:
|
||||||
|
a new concept''. In C. Pomerance, editor, Advances in
|
||||||
|
Cryptology, Proc. of Crypto '87, volume 293 of Lecture
|
||||||
|
Notes in Computer Science, pages 120--127, Santa Barbara,
|
||||||
|
California, U.S.A., August 16--20, 1988. Springer-Verlag.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
Wang, Huang & Rine [Page 7]
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
INTERNET-DRAFT June 2000
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
[Des94] Y. Desmedt. ``Threshold cryptography''. European Trans.
|
||||||
|
on Telecommunications, 5(4):449--457, July-August 1994.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
[Des97] Y. Desmedt. ``Some recent research aspects of threshold
|
||||||
|
cryptography''. In E. Okamoto, G. Davida, and M. Mambo,
|
||||||
|
editors, Information Security, volume 1396 of Lecture
|
||||||
|
Notes in Computer Science, pages 158--173, Tatsunokuchi,
|
||||||
|
Ishikawa, Japan, September 1997. Springer-Verlag.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
[DSA2] National Institute for Standards and Technology.
|
||||||
|
``Digital signature standard (DSS)'', February 2000.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
[GJKR96b] R. Gennaro, S. Jarecki, H. Krawczyk, and T. Rabin.
|
||||||
|
``Robust threshold DSS signatures''. In U. Maurer,
|
||||||
|
editor, Advances in Cryptology - Eurocrypt '96,
|
||||||
|
volume 1070 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science,
|
||||||
|
pages 354-371, Zaragoza, Spain, May 12--16 1996.
|
||||||
|
Springer-Verlag.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
[GMP] T. Granlund. ``GNU MP''. Source code available from
|
||||||
|
http://www.gnu.org/manual/gmp/index.html.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
[Liu99] C. Liu. ``Securing an Internet name server''.
|
||||||
|
Presentation, 1999. Available at
|
||||||
|
http://www.acmebw.com/papers/securing.pdf.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
[RFC1034] P. Mockapetris, ``Domain Names - Concepts and
|
||||||
|
Facilities,'' RFC 1034, ISI, November 1987.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
[RFC1035] P. Mockapetris, ``Domain Names - Implementation and
|
||||||
|
Specification,'' RFC 1035, ISI, November 1987.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
[RFC2136] P. Vixie (Ed.), S. Thomson, Y. Rekhter, J. Bound ``Dynamic
|
||||||
|
Updates in the Domain Name System,'' RFC 2136, ISC &
|
||||||
|
Bellcore & Cisco & DEC, April 1997.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
[RFC2137] D. Eastlake ``Secure Domain Name System Dynamic Update,''
|
||||||
|
RFC 2137, CyberCash, April 1997.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
[RFC2196] B. Fraser. ``Site Security Handbook,'' RFC2196, September
|
||||||
|
1997.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
[RFC2535] D. Eastlake, ``Domain Name System Security Extensions,''
|
||||||
|
RFC 2535, IBM, March 1999.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
[SBM99] R. Sandhu, V. Bhamidipati, and Q. Munawer. ``The ARBAC97
|
||||||
|
model for role-based administration of roles''. ACM
|
||||||
|
Transactions on Information System Security, 2(1):105-
|
||||||
|
135, February 1999.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
[Sha79] A. Shamir. ``How to share a secret''. Commun. ACM,
|
||||||
|
22:612-613, November 1979.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
Wang, Huang & Rine [Page 8]
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
INTERNET-DRAFT June 2000
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
8 - Author's Address
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
A postscript of this document is available from
|
||||||
|
http://www.cs.gmu.edu/~xwang4/dnssecureonline.ps
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
Send all comments to xwang4@cs.gmu.edu
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
Xunhua Wang
|
||||||
|
Department of Computer Science
|
||||||
|
George Mason University
|
||||||
|
Fairfax, VA 22030-4444
|
||||||
|
USA
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
Phone: +1-703-993-1536
|
||||||
|
Fax: +1-703-993-1710
|
||||||
|
EMail: xwang4@cs.gmu.edu
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
Yih Huang
|
||||||
|
Department of Computer Science
|
||||||
|
George Mason University
|
||||||
|
Fairfax, VA 22030-4444
|
||||||
|
USA
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
Phone: +1-703-993-1540
|
||||||
|
Fax: +1-703-993-1710
|
||||||
|
EMail: hyangyih@cs.gmu.edu
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
David Rine
|
||||||
|
Department of Computer Science
|
||||||
|
George Mason University
|
||||||
|
Fairfax, VA 22030-4444
|
||||||
|
USA
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
Phone: +1-703-993-1546
|
||||||
|
Fax: +1-703-993-1710
|
||||||
|
EMail: drine@cs.gmu.edu
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
9 - Full Copyright Statement
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2000). All Rights Reserved.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to
|
||||||
|
others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain
|
||||||
|
it or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied,
|
||||||
|
published and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction
|
||||||
|
of any kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this
|
||||||
|
paragraph are included on all such copies and derivative works.
|
||||||
|
However, this document itself may not be modified in any way,
|
||||||
|
such as by removing the copyright notice or references to the
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
Wang, Huang & Rine [Page 9]
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
INTERNET-DRAFT June 2000
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
Internet Society or other Internet organizations, except as needed
|
||||||
|
for the purpose of developing Internet standards in which case
|
||||||
|
the procedures for copyrights defined in the Internet Standards
|
||||||
|
process must be followed, or as required to translate it into
|
||||||
|
languages other than English.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be
|
||||||
|
revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
This document and the information contained herein is provided on
|
||||||
|
an "AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET
|
||||||
|
ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED,
|
||||||
|
INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE
|
||||||
|
INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
|
||||||
|
WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE."
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
Expires December 2000 [Page 10]
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
INTERNET-DRAFT Secure Online DNS Dynamic Update June 2000
|
Reference in New Issue
Block a user